Jump to content
Dragon's Den Community
Sign in to follow this  
knighTeen87

My ratings for the RPGs i played thru for 10 years.

Recommended Posts

Here is the list of RPGs i played thru for 10 years. Also i will give them all ratings out of 10, special awards and shame titles. I'm really wondering your thoughts. Here is the list:

 

Beyond The Beyond: 3/10

Breath Of Fire: 7/10

Castlevania-Aria Of Sorrow: 8/10

Castlevania-Circle Of The Moon: 7,5/10

Castlevania-Curse Of Darkness: 8,5/10

Castlevania-Dawn Of Sorrow: 8/10

Castlevania-Harmony Of Dissonance: 8,5/10

Castlevania-Order Of Ecclesia: 8/10

Castlevania-Portrait Of Ruin: 9/10

Castlevania-Symphony Of The Night: 10/10

Children Of Mana: 5/10

Chrono Trigger: 10/10

Crystalis(NES): 4,5/10

Darkstone: 6/10

Deep Labyrinth: 6/10

Demon's Souls: 9/10

Dragon Quest I(SNES): 8,5/10

Dragon Quest II(SNES): 5,5/10

Dragon Quest III(SNES): 7/10

Dragon Quest V: 8/10

Dragon Quest VII: 9,5/10

Dragon Quest VIII: 10/10

Dragon Quest IX: 9/10

Dragon Quest Monsters-Caravan Heart: 7,5/10

Eternal Ring: 7,5/10

Fighting Fantasy-The Warlock of Firetop Mountain: 7,5/10

Final Fantasy I(PSX): 9,5/10 (My dear very first RPG)

Final Fantasy II(PSX): 6/10

Final Fantasy III(NES): 5,5/10

Final Fantasy III(DS): 6,5/10

Final Fantasy IV(PSX): 6/10

Final Fantasy IV(DS): 7,5/10

Final Fantasy V(PSX): 6,5/10

Final Fantasy VI(GBA): 8/10

Final Fantasy X: 10/10

Final Fantast Tactics: 10/10

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance: 6,5/10

King's Field I: 9,5/10

King's Field II: 9,5/10

King's Field III: 10/10

King's Field IV: 10/10

Legend Of Mana: 10/10

Legend Of Zelda-Minish Cap: 9/10

Legend Of Zelda-Phantom Hourglass: 8,5/10

Lunar Silver Star Story Complete: 8/10

Lunar 2-Eternal Blue Complete: 5/10

Mazes Of Fate: 7,5/10

Orcs&Elves: 7/10

Parasite Eve II: 6/10

Persona III: 8,5/10

Shadow Tower: 4/10

Suikoden I: 8,5/10

Suikoden II: 10/10

Suikoden III: 8/10

Suikoden IV: 7,5/10

Sword Of Mana: 8/10

Tactics Ogre-Let Us Cling Togeter(PSX): 6/10

Wizardry-Tale Of The Forsaken Land: 7,5/10

 

And there are the ones i played for a long and long time ago. I can't remember them enough to give proper ratings. So i will play thru them again some time i think:

Breath Of Fire III

Chrono Cross

Pokemon Blue

Final Fantasy VII

Final Fantasy IX

Hoshigami:Running Blue Earth

Persona II

 

And here are the best&worst awards for 10 years:

 

THE BEST AWARDS

Best RPG: Suikoden II

Best Series: King's Field

Best Music: Chrono Trigger

Best Composer: Koichi Sugiyama (Dragon Quest serisi)

Best Storyline: Final Fantasy Tactics

Best Character: Viktor(Suikoden)

Best Battle Engine/System: Final Fantasy X

Special "Life Time Success" Award: Final Fantasy I Origins

 

THE SHAME LIST

Worst RPG: Shadow Tower

Most Overrated RPG: Dragon Quest III

Worst Music: Shadow Tower

Worst Storyline: Final Fantasy III

Worst Character: Seymour (FFX)

Worst Battle Engine/System: Final Fantasy II

Special "Life Time Fail" Award: Final Fantasy II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehhh... the Castlevania games aren't RPGs. They're platformers. But they're still awesome. >_>

 

I wonder, what's wrong with DQ3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff dq3 - whats wrong with dq2?

doesn't a ship count for any thing these days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i see, lots of people's favorite DQ is DQ3. And it has incredible ratings on the websites and magazines. Even a survey conducted by the magazine Famitsu in early 2006 among its readers placed Dragon Quest III as the third most favorite game of all time, being preceded by only Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VII,[55] and the best game on Famicom.

DQ3 is a good game, i admit it. Bu if you ask me, not one of the greatest games ever. It can't even enter in my top 20 videogames list. That's why I'm calling it "overrated". Ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played through every single game listed, and about three times as many in total.

 

The Zelda series, are in no way RPGs; neither are the Castlevania series. Role-Playing Games present all instances of action as abstractions meant to represent imaginary specifics. The concept is based off of Dungeons & Dragons, which coined the term "Role-Playing Game." Random encounters, map scaling, shops, part inventory, etc, are all abstractions meant to represent imaginary actions. Role-Playing Game means that "roles are played," such as a menu-driven encounter playing an intense, heated battle between men and monsters.

 

The reason Zelda is not an RPG is that there is no abstracted action. You are shown performing the actions as they occur, hence it as an Action game.. Castlevania is not an RPG firstly for the same reason as Zelda; secondly, despite the abstraction of attributes, you still perform direct action in combat. Your character cannot be imagined that, with his growing attributes, he performs better in battle; he is literally hopping around swinging his sword. Instead, damage increases, which misses the entire point of how RPG's are supposed to work.

 

Story, also, has little to do with RPG's intrinsically, as any type of game can have a story.

 

The OP's general theme with his rating system seems to, with the nostalgia-based exception of Final Fantasy I, punish games for prioritizing RPG game play over plot.

 

Suikoden IV, for instance, was the lightest of the series in terms of story, but the best in terms of solid game play mechanics.

 

Final Fantasy III got Worst Story, when it had one of the best stories--it was a classical epic. Where Final Fantasy X failed, story-wise to me, was that the writers did not understand that dialog does not equate plot. When you play a game with a silent protagonist, you are forced into the perspective of the character. You do not have that character's written beliefs to guide you, all you have is your own--making you that character. In Final Fantasy X, you are railroaded into a drama where lack of actual plot is washed over by plot-twists and tragedy.

 

You can look down on Dragon Quest 3 all you want, but the fact of the matter is, it is the best RPG ever made, and here is why: compare it to Final Fantasy IV. Final Fantasy IV had nothing on Dragon Quest 3, mechanically. It was shorter, it was easier (even the Hard Type), and it had linear design. Dragon Quest 3 was longer, had far more sophisticated game play mechanics, was more difficult, and did not force you to play a man who looks like a chick. Dragon Quest 3 was also made three years before Final Fantasy IV. My point? NOTHING was like Dragon Quest III. No game has ever been so far ahead of its time. It was a monstrous game, that did things to the Nintendo never before seen. Now, I love Final Fantasy III, but the fact that it was released two full years after Dragon Quest III, and was the closest a Final Fantasy ever came to impersonating a Dragon Quest, is proof of my point. Dragon Quest III literally kicked the gaming world's ass.

 

Final Fantasy II was daring in the same way, but it failed. I love Final Fantasy II, I imported it in 1996 or so. It was way ahead of its time as well, and its legacy, the SaGa series, unfortunately met with many of the same problems; most of which were that "it was too hard, and the developers did not get the mechanics working good enough."

 

It has been a widely held belief for many years that Japanese game developers considered RPGs too hard for a Western audience. This is absolutely true. If you are one of those who deny this, then you are an exception. For those of you old enough to remember, think back to when you were chomping at the bit for school to let out so you could go home and play Illusion of Gaia while everyone else in your class was going on about how good Shaq Fu was.

 

Here is this. Final Fantasy II had a deep story unseen in early RPGs. The difficulty of the game, however, made this story unapproachable. Final Fantasy IV, initially, had this same problem, so it was re-released as an easier version. Though Square moved on to greater things, the concept of game play taking a backseat to story in RPGs became epidemic. This is so bad that, as I stated above, the meaning of RPG has become associated with setting and theme, not the actual mechanics that it was originally based on! The outcome? RPG's becoming a vehicle to tell a story, where, if you're lucky, the battle system is playable. Congratulations, you just paid sixty bucks for a book (with pictures!).

 

This is not an attack on the OP, rather my response to SOME of his ratings.

 

Seriously, though, you did not like Crystalis? That game beat the crap out of Zelda in every single way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read thru all of your opinions man and i respect them.

 

I played paper&dice RPGs also for years and role playing is not playing your own self or who you want to play. It's also playing a "role" of somebody, a character, etc, even playing the role of Link or Alucard with RPG elements.So i got nothing against playing thru story of a character if it's really good.

 

And role playing is not only battling out also. Every good role play brings good stories also. and as for myself, story is one of the most important thing in a video game. That's why i gave FF2 a 6 out of 10. "6" means "Close to good" to me and it had great nice musics(the other thing that i really care in video game also), nice storyline but a poor, even a terrible battle system. For all those years, lots of people attacked their own characters for gaining HPs due to that exp system. And never again series used that system. That was the greatest problem of FF2

 

And if you asked, FF3(NES) was even worse than that. I can't battle out monsters for 40 hours with "you are light warriros 16 years old boys, save us please" storyline, sorry about that. I have to wonder(even though lost of RPGs have cliches) what will happen next to the story or my character at least.

 

Suikoden 2 is the greatest game i have ever played. if you still say S4 was better, i have nothing to say.

 

J-RPGs are not too hard for me, i even finished lots of them under the number of levels suggested by hardcore gamers. But if a game wants me to turn back and kill same monsters over and over again for hours just to kill a single boss(even though to i came thru whole path him battling to him), sorry but i can just consider that a cheap way to make gameplay time longer. That what DQ2, DQ3, Children of Mana, FF3, DQ7 did. If you want to make gameplay time longer, just move your ass and add some extra features, bonus dungeons, side stories, etc. Power trips are the easiest cheap tricks to do that.

 

Sorry but that's what it's to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you address role-playing literally in context with video games; then every single video game is a role-playing game. You play a role in every video game, but that does not qualify them as an RPG. That is just spurious reasoning. The plot of a video game has nothing to do with its genre of game play. Absolutely nothing. You want the best story for an NES game? Try Astyanax, a platformer. If I want a good story, I will read a book. There has not been an RPG made that can even come close to having a story as good as Les Miserable or Murder On the Orient Express.

 

Between Suikoden II and Suikoden IV, the latter is the better game, mechanically. The battle system and the graphics are the best in-series. Suikoden II had a much better plot. A much, much, much better plot. The only thing I have to say against Suikoden II, is that the English localization was very poorly done.

 

"J-RPGs are not too hard for me, i even finished lots of them under the number of levels suggested by hardcore gamers. But if a game wants me to turn back and kill same monsters over and over again for hours just to kill a single boss(even though to i came thru whole path him battling to him), sorry but i can just consider that a cheap way to make gameplay time longer. That what DQ2, DQ3, Children of Mana, FF3, DQ7 did. If you want to make gameplay time longer, just move your ass and add some extra features, bonus dungeons, side stories, etc. Power trips are the easiest cheap tricks to do that."

 

You just shot your credibility as a fan of RPG's in the foot. You just admitted to hating the entirety of what RPG's are. They are not about plot, they are not about literally playing the role of another character. They are about abstract mechanisms replacing literal action. You are arguing that the point of an RPG is to proceed to the end of the story, when it is just not. The point of a game is to be played. You must inevitably play to win, but that does not mean "just get it done." All the game you mention as having a "cheap way to make gameplay time longer" seems house some belief that this is a bad thing, and furthermore that a game's length determines its quality. This is just wrong. There is no right to it. You are faulting RPG's for being RPG's. Seriously, go read a $#!&ing book.

 

You would probably like the Tales of... series. They mistakenly presume that every player wants to hear ever last thought every playable character has at any given moment. You really get to know the characters--too bad it is a game, and listening to asinine juvenile dialog is about as fun as trying to express facts, with absolute evidence, to misguided people on the internet.

 

On a side note, you should play Phantasy Star: End of the Millenium on the Genesis. It has the perfect balance of plot and game play. It is as good as Chrono Trigger in every way that makes Chrono Trigger good. Even though Phantasy Star IV has cooler cut-scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, we have different expectations from games. For you RPG means battle system, but for me it's a combination of battle, musics, storyline, character, concept, atmosphere. It has to combine all these elements for me to call it a "Good One". Same goes for me for the other genres also, i even expect good musics and storyline even from a fighting game. That's why I prefer King Of Fighters over Street Fighter

 

For me playing a RPG is listening musics of the game even after beating it and having memories about that.

For me playing a RPG is talking the outcome of storyline with friends or sharing opinions

For me playing a RPG is finding and reading trivias, side notes about the game

For me playing a RPG is collecting the official arts of the characters that i like

 

Best battle system was at FFX if you ask me, but if it hadn't Nobuo's compositions, good characters and a good story(i liked it whatever you say) i would just give it 5 or 6 out of 10, nothing more...

 

So i don't expect you to understand me just like i can't understand you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For him," RPG means abstracted mechanics, allowing you to fit into and become (stand in for) the role of a character. Which is pretty much what an RPG is supposed to be. See: D&D, GURPS, Ultima, etc. This is actually pretty much what an RPG has been from the beginning. Or rather, it is what makes an RPG an RPG.

 

"a combination of battle, musics, storyline, character, concept, atmosphere" is actually what is pretty much the definition of "a game knighTeen87 enjoys." Maybe those are things you look for in an RPG, but those are not what actually makes it an RPG. All those things you look for in an RPG can be present in almost any genre. That is the point LMS is trying to make, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For him," RPG means abstracted mechanics, allowing you to fit into and become (stand in for) the role of a character. Which is pretty much what an RPG is supposed to be. See: D&D, GURPS, Ultima, etc. This is actually pretty much what an RPG has been from the beginning. Or rather, it is what makes an RPG an RPG.

 

"a combination of battle, musics, storyline, character, concept, atmosphere" is actually what is pretty much the definition of "a game knighTeen87 enjoys." Maybe those are things you look for in an RPG, but those are not what actually makes it an RPG. All those things you look for in an RPG can be present in almost any genre. That is the point LMS is trying to make, I believe.

 

What you have said here is EXACTLY my meaning. Well done, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"RPG" is just a genre title. It doesn't hold any kind of inherent, cosmic legitimacy. Genre titles, and what they define, can change when they jump to new mediums, or even just change over time. They're hardly absolute, and honestly tend to be more like rules of thumb than rigidly-defined laws.

 

You can argue about what makes a "true RPG" all you like, though I guarantee you that it'll be absolutely meaningless to anyone but yourself. You're trying to hold sand between your fingers. It doesn't matter if you've played a billion RPGs, or are the sole heir to the grand RPG Kingdom, genres always tend to have a level of subjectivity to them. Genres change, they morph, and in the end... genre titles are primarily for our convenience.

 

You may be of the opinion that only the original definition of "RPG" is the correct one, but there's nothing to objectively prove that genres and the way they're defined changing over time is wrong and should never happen, that is an opinion.

 

In the end, the original concept of any genre was born and formed from in human mind, making it inherently subjective at the time of its creation. You could say there was reasoning, and logic involved in the creation of a genre title, but even those are subject to the creator's values and perception. Genre titles were never technically objective, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

As trite as it might sound, these are just your opinions. You cannot refute an opinion with another opinion.

 

Liquid Metal Babble, your opinions on RPGs are hardly illogical or unreasonable, but your attitude leaves something to be desired. Telling someone to "read a $#!&ing book" because their opinions on videogames differ from yours is not intelligent discourse, by any reasonable standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go back to the beginning with mine.

 

Arcanum - 10/10 - My 2nd favorite of all of them - most underrated. Fallout's close cousin.

Chrono Trigger - 9/10

Crystalis - 8/10

Dragon Quest 1 (NES) - 7.5/10

DQ2 - 8/10

DQ3 - 8/10

DQ4 - 10/10

DQ5 - 10/10

DQ6 - 8.5/10

DQ7 - 9.5/10

DQ8 - 9/10

DQ9 - 7/10

Dungeon and Dragons - Treasure of Tarmin - 7/10 (Intellivision) - Old school dungeon crawler.

Fallout 8/10

Fallout 2 9/10

Final Fantasy 7/10 NES, 8/10 Remake (PSX)

FFII 2/10 (PSX remake) Liked the story, but broken system.

FFIII 5/10 DS (Didn't like the difficulty of the end at all and lack of saving spot there)

FFIV 10/10 both DS and SNES - My personal favorite of the series. My favorite story. I saw a lot of myself in Cecil. Glad hero wasn't a brat.

FFV 6.5/10 PSX remake - Solid, not spectacular.

FFVI 9.5/10 SNES - A bit easy since you can spam the ultima spell, but the most indepth of the games with the exception of tactics.

FFVII - 6/10 PSX - Great first half, then weak ending part. Shinra was the perfect villain. Seprioth on the other hand, meh. Cloud's stolen honor really soured me as well.

FFVIII - 6.5/10 PSX - Much maligned. Not as bad as the hype, but not a great game.

FFIX - 8/10 - PSX My favorite of the modern FF games. A bit of a throwback in setting.

FFX - 2/10 - PS2 Not a bad battle system, but Tidus ruins the game. I've never disliked a main hero character more in my 30+ year gaming history.

FFXII - 7/10 - PS2 Below avg battle system, great level up system, decent story. Solid, not spectacular.

FF Tactics - 10/10 - My 2nd favorite to FFIV.

Knights of the Old Republic - 7/10 (8.5 if it wasn't so damn buggy)

Knights of the Old Republic II - 7/10

Might and Magic 6 - 8/10

Might and Magic 7 - 9.5/10 - Their best work outside of Heroes 3.

Might and Magic 8 - 6/10 - WAY too short and easy. Same format as M&M 6/7.

Might and Magic 9 - 5/10

Persona 3 - 8/10

Persona 4 - 8/10

Phantasy Star 2 - 5/10 (Played it on Sega Genesis Collection, never got into it)

Radiata Stories - 6/10

Star Ocean - Till the end of time (so far) - 8.5/10

Suikoden - 8/10

Suikoden 2 - 10/10

Suikoden 3 - 9/10

Suikoden 4 - 5/10

Suikoden 5 - 10/10

Suikoden Tactics 6/10

Suikoden Tierkenis (DS) 6/10

Ultima 3 (NES) - 6/10

Ultima 4 (NES/PC) - 9/10

Ultima 5 (PC) - 7.5/10 (So far - haven't finished)

Ultima 6 (PC) - 8.5/10 (so far - haven't finished)

Ultima 7: Black Gate - 10+/10 - My favorite of all time

Ultima 7: Serpent Isle - 10/10 - Really part of the same game.

Ultima 8 - 3/10 - I shouldn't get killed by jumping in an RPG. Worst, what's an Ultima game without a party?

Ultima 9 - 1/10 - Notice that the best and worst RPG on my list are from the same series.

 

The too incomplete to rate list - great potential from what I've played

 

Baldur's Gate II

Betrayal at Krondor

 

Best list:

Best RPG: Ultima 7

Best Series: Suikoden/Dragon Quest (Tie) DQ more consistent.

Best Storyline: Ultima VII

Best Characters: Tough call. Dupre, Shamino, Raven, Cecil, Georg Prime,

Best Villains - Batlin, Bishop Ladja, Marcello, Kefka, Luca Blight, Necrosaro

Best Battle Engine/System: Dragon Quest Series.

Most Underrated - Final Fantasy IX (Could argue Arcanum, but that's highly rated by those who know it)

 

Worst List"

Worst RPG: Ultima IX. Dishonorable mention to FFII and FFX

Most Overrated RPG: Final Fantasy X

Worst Storyline: Final Fantasy X

Worst Character that you aren't supposed to hate: Tidus (FFX) Dishonorable mention to Jack Russell for Radiata Stories.

Worst Battle Engine/System: Ultima VIII. Dishonorable mention to Ultima IX and FFII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"RPG" is just a genre title. It doesn't hold any kind of inherent, cosmic legitimacy. Genre titles, and what they define, can change when they jump to new mediums, or even just change over time. They're hardly absolute, and honestly tend to be more like rules of thumb than rigidly-defined laws.

 

You can argue about what makes a "true RPG" all you like, though I guarantee you that it'll be absolutely meaningless to anyone but yourself. You're trying to hold sand between your fingers. It doesn't matter if you've played a billion RPGs, or are the sole heir to the grand RPG Kingdom, genres always tend to have a level of subjectivity to them. Genres change, they morph, and in the end... genre titles are primarily for our convenience.

 

You may be of the opinion that only the original definition of "RPG" is the correct one, but there's nothing to objectively prove that genres and the way they're defined changing over time is wrong and should never happen, that is an opinion.

 

In the end, the original concept of any genre was born and formed from in human mind, making it inherently subjective at the time of its creation. You could say there was reasoning, and logic involved in the creation of a genre title, but even those are subject to the creator's values and perception. Genre titles were never technically objective, and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

As trite as it might sound, these are just your opinions. You cannot refute an opinion with another opinion.

 

Liquid Metal Babble, your opinions on RPGs are hardly illogical or unreasonable, but your attitude leaves something to be desired. Telling someone to "read a $#!&ing book" because their opinions on videogames differ from yours is not intelligent discourse, by any reasonable standard.

 

So an RPG is what, then? A non-definition? They can only be defined by what they are not? You are wrong. You are not even using "genre" in the proper sense. Go play Freud elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of RPG rating, here is my list. I may not have completed as many RPGs as some of you, but here goes:

 

Breath of Fire (GBC): 6/10

Breath of Fire II (GBC): 7.5/10

Dragon Warrior (NES): 7/10

Dragon Warrior (GBC): 7/10

Dragon Warrior II (NES): 7/10

Dragon Warrior III (NES): 8/10

Dragon Warrior III (GBC): 9/10

Dragon Warrior IV (NES): 10/10

Dragon Quest V (SFC): 10/10 (I never felt more personally involved in an RPG than in DQV. Great gameplay, story, music, everything.)

Dragon Warrior VII (PS): 8/10

Dragon Quest IX (DS): 6/10 (The actual game seemed rather uninspired after the first bit. Also, I really dislike randomly generated dungeons.)

Dragon Warrior Monsters: 6/10 (Again, the randomly generated maps)

Final Fantasy (GBA): 8/10 (The added content in these two were great, especially for FFII)

Final Fantasy II (GBC): 8/10 (Yes you can abuse the system, but if you play it like it's meant to be played, it actually works alright)

Final Fantasy III (DS): 5/10 (I found the game boring. Also, if I can easily obliterate the final boss, spend extra 10 hours leveling, and still destroyed in 1-2 rounds by the bonus boss, that's not challenge, that's stupid.)

Final Fantasy IX (PS): 9/10 (This game remembers what it is that makes RPGs fun to play. Mostly, anyway.)

Final Fantasy X (PS2): 7/10 (I didn't like the lack of overworld map and linearity so much. Also, the characters were annoying.)

Golden Sun (GBA): 6/10 (It looks great, but it's only moderately fun to play)

Mother/Earthbound Zero (FC/NES): 6.5/10 (Pretty neat once you get into it, but it's pretty slow)

Paper Mario (N64): 8/10

Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (GC): 10/10

Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow (GB): 9/10 (The classics are great, and no big gimmicks like later in the series)

Pokémon Gold/Silver: 9/10 (Haven't played Crystal, so no rating there)

Pokémon Platinum: 7/10 (Good game, but too many you-can-only-get-this-if-you-have-lots-of-friends-nearby things going on, and no access to well over half the Pokémon)

Star Ocean: The Second Story (PS): 9/10

Super Mario RPG (SNES): 7/10 (Great at the time, but playing it now, it feels a little too much like it's made for young kids)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of RPG rating, here is my list. I may not have completed as many RPGs as some of you, but here goes:

 

Breath of Fire (GBC): 6/10

Breath of Fire II (GBC): 7.5/10

Dragon Warrior (NES): 7/10

Dragon Warrior (GBC): 7/10

Dragon Warrior II (NES): 7/10

Dragon Warrior III (NES): 8/10

Dragon Warrior III (GBC): 9/10

Dragon Warrior IV (NES): 10/10

Dragon Quest V (SFC): 10/10 (I never felt more personally involved in an RPG than in DQV. Great gameplay, story, music, everything.)

Dragon Warrior VII (PS): 8/10

Dragon Quest IX (DS): 6/10 (The actual game seemed rather uninspired after the first bit. Also, I really dislike randomly generated dungeons.)

Dragon Warrior Monsters: 6/10 (Again, the randomly generated maps)

Final Fantasy (GBA): 8/10 (The added content in these two were great, especially for FFII)

Final Fantasy II (GBC): 8/10 (Yes you can abuse the system, but if you play it like it's meant to be played, it actually works alright)

Final Fantasy III (DS): 5/10 (I found the game boring. Also, if I can easily obliterate the final boss, spend extra 10 hours leveling, and still destroyed in 1-2 rounds by the bonus boss, that's not challenge, that's stupid.)

Final Fantasy IX (PS): 9/10 (This game remembers what it is that makes RPGs fun to play. Mostly, anyway.)

Final Fantasy X (PS2): 7/10 (I didn't like the lack of overworld map and linearity so much. Also, the characters were annoying.)

Golden Sun (GBA): 6/10 (It looks great, but it's only moderately fun to play)

Mother/Earthbound Zero (FC/NES): 6.5/10 (Pretty neat once you get into it, but it's pretty slow)

Paper Mario (N64): 8/10

Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door (GC): 10/10

Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow (GB): 9/10 (The classics are great, and no big gimmicks like later in the series)

Pokémon Gold/Silver: 9/10 (Haven't played Crystal, so no rating there)

Pokémon Platinum: 7/10 (Good game, but too many you-can-only-get-this-if-you-have-lots-of-friends-nearby things going on, and no access to well over half the Pokémon)

Star Ocean: The Second Story (PS): 9/10

Super Mario RPG (SNES): 7/10 (Great at the time, but playing it now, it feels a little too much like it's made for young kids)

 

I have never read a better description of Golden Sun ever in my life. The Breath of Fire ports were on the GBA, btw. Good taste in games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an RPG is what, then? A non-definition? They can only be defined by what they are not? You are wrong. You are not even using "genre" in the proper sense. Go play Freud elsewhere.

What is an RPG? Well that's the problem. Genre definitions pretty much exist inside the collective consciousness, like much of pop culture. It may have started somewhere, but ultimately it is inherently SUBjective, and therefor is not OBjective. You understand the difference, correct?

 

I will keep it simple, since perhaps I rambled too much in trying to be comprehensive... Genres are concepts, formed from opinions, perceptions, and personal reasoning EVEN at their conception. It isn't a matter of psychology, the bottom line is that your definition of an RPG cannot be factually correct. It can be logical, it can be reasonable, it can be well-conceived, but subjective things can not be factually correct. That is not what a fact is. Genre definitions may have logical bases, but they never, at any time, had objective bases.

 

I understand, the line between logical yet subjective and objective can seem very thin at points, but it is still there. I don't know why it bothers you that knighTeen doesn't share your personal perception of the RPG genre, or why you apparently need everyone to accept your personal beliefs about RPGs (sacrament of sacraments!) as fact, and to be frank, I don't care. I certainly hope this kind of needlessly confrontational behavior from you is not going to become the norm around the RPG General section of the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion on the Castlevania series.

 

Symphony of the Night is one of the best RPGs ever made. Period.

 

EVER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason Zelda is not an RPG is that there is no abstracted action. You are shown performing the actions as they occur, hence it as an Action game.

Once upon a time this statement would have been 99% valid. Quest for Glory, King's Field, The Elder Scrolls and MMORPGs in general crossed this line of distinction long ago. I remember when the LoZ series was categorized as Action/Adventure with RPG elements, but as more modern RPGs have adopted action/adventure elements it's really just splitting hairs. The only discernible difference is the Legend of Zelda series eschews an experience point-based system. Perhaps this is the backbone of the definition of an RPG? Perhaps -- however, I recall in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion it's actually much easier to beat the game if you don't level up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason Zelda is not an RPG is that there is no abstracted action. You are shown performing the actions as they occur, hence it as an Action game.

Once upon a time this statement would have been 99% valid. Quest for Glory, King's Field, The Elder Scrolls and MMORPGs in general crossed this line of distinction long ago. I remember when the LoZ series was categorized as Action/Adventure with RPG elements, but as more modern RPGs have adopted action/adventure elements it's really just splitting hairs. The only discernible difference is the Legend of Zelda series eschews an experience point-based system. Perhaps this is the backbone of the definition of an RPG? Perhaps -- however, I recall in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion it's actually much easier to beat the game if you don't level up!

 

I don't consider Zelda RPG's. Action adventures. That's what it was called back in 88. Link and Link to the Past has RPG elements at times, but I still consider them Action/Adventure games.

 

I did however put Crystalis as an RPG. I think the big thing is the grinding requirement. Crystalis requires grinding, more than some modern RPG's actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider The Legend of Zelda games to be RPGs either, but saying they're not RPGs is really just splitting hairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually stick the RPG label on games that have an RPG core. This then makes things like Final Fantasy and Ultima are RPGs, but makes things like newer (SotN+) Castlevania games Action games/Platformers with RPG and Adventure elements.

 

I stick by what I said makes a game an RPG though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually stick the RPG label on games that have an RPG core. This then makes things like Final Fantasy and Ultima are RPGs, but makes things like newer (SotN+) Castlevania games Action games/Platformers with RPG and Adventure elements.

 

I stick by what I said makes a game an RPG though.

 

This is exactly correct. There are prescribed meanings for every genre. Genre were created to categorize similarities (typically in literature) by form, style, function, and subject matter. To even suggest relative meanings to genre is just ridiculous. Genre are literally the opposite of being relative, they are related-to. A Board Game is called a Board Game because it has a $#!&ing board in it. You identify the principle characteristics of a subject and then categorize them into genre. This is absolutely not my opinion, it is how it is.

 

Crolley, you are wrong. You could not be more wrong, in fact. When you feel like obtaining a master's degree in English Literature, you can come back and argue with me about the function of genre in any form of media. Furthermore, "As trite as it might sound, these are just your opinions. You cannot refute an opinion with another opinion," is exactly what you have done. Mine was not opining, it was statement of facts. Any form of media can be equally of one or many genre.

 

If you want to get technical, and I do, to establish the genre of any video game, you must first identify the core mechanic of the gameplay. In RPG's you use abstractions of actions, based on a mechanic, to win the game. In action games you have to take direct action over a physical environment to win the game. In Adventure games, you have to willingly undertake dangerous actions towards a foregone conclusion (prior stated goal) which will win the game. Let's stick to these three right now. RPG = emphasis of abstract representation of action, Action = emphasis on dealing with physical environments, and Adventure = emphasis on accomplishing a pre-determined goal.

 

To address my first point in this thread, story does not play a part in video game genre identification. However, to further point out the prescriptive nature of genre, I will go on. First we'll deal with Fantasy. The fantasy genre basically means that either the theme or setting is not based in reality. Science Fiction specifically deals with mankind in a conflict of an imagined nature. If the imaginary qualities of the story are put in direct opposition to the human perspective, it is science fiction. Otherwise, it is fantasy. Star Wars, for example, is more fantasy than science fiction, as the only imaginary conflict is Luke learning to use the Force, which was not the central conflict in the movie. And then there is the Romance. The hero on a quest, who must overcome myriad hurdles to accomplish his goal. This is the bread and butter of fiction. Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Romance and all three genre by their own right. So let us work out a case reference here.

 

Suikoden II

 

Central Mechanic: Menu-driven Combat (RPG)

Setting: Fantastic, re-imagined medieval China (Fantasy)

Story Conflicts: Nation Vs. Nation (general fiction), Bright Shield Rune VS. Dark Sword Rune (adventure, as it is a foregone conclusion that the two must conflict with one another to reconcile), Hero On a Quest (romance).

 

Well, going back to the board game reference, the absolute heart of the game is the mechanic with must be manipulated to win the game--the RPG one. You have to read dialog from text windows, use menus to traverse intimate details, be limited to six party members, fight random encounters,--using a turn-based combat system. All of these are representative of the single quality that defines an RPG: abstraction of action through a representative mechanic.

 

Suikoden II is a Fantasy Role-Playing Game with a romantic plot.

 

No video game falls outside of one of the basic genre of video game. Action (Overcoming physical danger), Adventure (Completing a fore-mentioned goal), Sports, Simulation (Simulating actions realistically as possible; sports, racing, military simulation, etc), and Role-Playing (Simulating actions abstractly as necessary; based on Dungeons & Dragons).

 

The aforementioned Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is a good example of a game with multiple genre. You must traverse a physical environment (Action) using abstract numbers to represent combat physics (RPG) on a quest to prevent Dracula's resurrection (Adventure). Thus, it is an Action Adventure RPG. You can also safely say that it has a romantic fantasy plot. Calling Symphony of the Night an RPG is just not correct, however. It is in no way an RPG. It is not less than the sum of its parts. The brilliance of the game is that it weaves together three genre beautifully.

 

Genres do not change, games do. This is fact.

 

The tone of my posts and word choice have nothing to do with the credibility of my statements. I swear, a lot, but that does not make me any less legitimate than anyone else. I have been confronted by a mistaken observation of me being hostile rather than confrontational. I attribute this to my strong aversion to using emoticons. I have never in my life used them, nor ever will I.

 

There is an old saying I learned through years of competitive debate: "I cannot argue with his words, so I will complain about his tone." That's called ad hominem (Latin, to the man), and it is the most pathetic form of debate. Instead of focusing on the debated topic, you try to attack the credibility of your opposition.

 

I am not incorrect because I am an $#!&$#!. The literal purpose of a forum is for an out-of-doors venue for any number of purposes. The purpose of this topic was for the OP to review his opinions on several video games; to which I replied. The fact of whether or not I did so politely is not the point. The point is that he stated his opinion, and I stated mine, and the reason for mine. And now I am forced into the position of either doing something else, or establishing my dominance.

 

I did not come here to educate the viewers of this topic on literature. Do not disrespect me by suggesting that the decade of my life I spent educating myself about this very subject is equivalent to the unvalidated speculative reasoning taken in descriptively through context.

Edited by Liquid Metal Babble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Liquid Metal Babbel, it was never your opinion I had a problem with. It was your insistence that knighTeen's opinion was wrong, and your general attitude. I'm not trying to win any kind of debate, but you are right, I took the wrong approach and I missed the mark.

 

I'm sorry that expecting you to be polite in a peaceful forum is apparently unreasonable. It's also unfortunate that you feel "forced" into the position of "establishing dominance", like an animal instead of, say, like a thinking and secure human being who spent tens years of his life getting a degree.

 

In any case, this isn't going anywhere, so I think it's time for me to quit. Congratulations, I guess this means you won. That is what you were trying to do, correct? You are now free to do as you please. Actually, you always were. Still, for some reason you felt the need to "establish dominance". Do intelligent men so easily let their egos guide their actions?

 

Oh well. No hard feelings, happy trails, etcetera. Good luck with your game.

 

Edit:

You know, I've thought about it, and I have something to add. I admit the line about "establishing dominance" being more the action of an animal than a man was meant to be somewhat mocking, but it occurs to me that if I did cause you to feel like you were on the defensive, then it's unlikely that you would have reacted any other way than the way you did.

 

So if you felt threatened, then I apologize. I'm hardly trying to attack you. You say things things like "don't disrespect me" and complain of ad hominem attacks, so apparently I did do something you perceived as an attack. The remark about your attitude, I would think. It was made poorly, and that was my mistake. I suppose your attitude ended up being the result of you feeling threatened, perhaps?

 

There's really no threat to you here. Nor anything meant as a threat.

Edited by Crolley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Liquid Metal Babbel, it was never your opinion I had a problem with. It was your insistence that knighTeen's opinion was wrong, and your general attitude. I'm not trying to win any kind of debate, but you are right, I took the wrong approach and I missed the mark.

 

I'm sorry that expecting you to be polite in a peaceful forum is apparently unreasonable. It's also unfortunate that you feel "forced" into the position of "establishing dominance", like an animal instead of, say, like a thinking and secure human being who spent tens years of his life getting a degree.

 

In any case, this isn't going anywhere, so I think it's time for me to quit. Congratulations, I guess this means you won. That is what you were trying to do, correct? You are now free to do as you please. Actually, you always were. Still, for some reason you felt the need to "establish dominance". Do intelligent men so easily let their egos guide their actions?

 

Oh well. No hard feelings, happy trails, etcetera. Good luck with your game.

 

Edit:

You know, I've thought about it, and I have something to add. I admit the line about "establishing dominance" being more the action of an animal than a man was meant to be somewhat mocking, but it occurs to me that if I did cause you to feel like you were on the defensive, then it's unlikely that you would have reacted any other way than the way you did.

 

So if you felt threatened, then I apologize. I'm hardly trying to attack you. You say things things like "don't disrespect me" and complain of ad hominem attacks, so apparently I did do something you perceived as an attack. The remark about your attitude, I would think. It was made poorly, and that was my mistake. I suppose your attitude ended up being the result of you feeling threatened, perhaps?

 

There's really no threat to you here. Nor anything meant as a threat.

 

A very good reply, sir. This same thing happens to me every forum I post on, eventually. People often interpret what I am saying as a attack, rather than as the debate it is meant to be. I have, perhaps, actually begun attacking people. I am not the type of person who forms an opinion and holds it with disregard for reason. I admire this response, and I wish more people were capable of doing such. I get outraged every single time someone argues not with what I said, but at how I said it. If I say someone is wrong, I give the reason why. When I am then replied to with statements I know to be false, or criticisms of my tone, it makes me angry. A fault in communication is always due to the speaker, however; I took no action to present my intent better when replying to the OP's post.

 

I would like to point out, however, that an entitlement to an opinion does not make that opinion true.

 

Instead of "establish dominance," I should have said, "assert my influence." I am a person who takes his interests very seriously.

 

Look at this from my perspective. A person posts a review of their completed RPGs; RPGs being a subject I am quite familiar with, having been playing them for about 22 years or so. This person then faults an RPG for being an RPG. Just as they are entitled to state their beliefs, so do I, to mine.

 

People can play RPGs for whatever reason they want to, and say what they want to about them. However, when done so in a public forum where discussion is the point of saying anything at all, there are bound to be disagreements. If I am stating my opinion, I will say that is what I am doing.

 

Something very relative is interpretation of speech. Without audible tone, intent is difficult to interpret as people now write more similarly to how they speak because schools have stopped teaching grammar effectively. This is the root of my comment about emoticons. I refuse to use them as I hate them. Many people find it easier to just throw out a winking smiley face to establish their tone. I find this to be akin to mumbling and walking away.

 

If you really want to know how I think, go look up the difference between Prescriptive and Descriptive Dictionaries. I side with the former.

Edited by Liquid Metal Babble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very good reply, sir. This same thing happens to me every forum I post on, eventually. People often interpret what I am saying as a attack, rather than as the debate it is meant to be. I have, perhaps, actually begun attacking people. I am not the type of person who forms an opinion and holds it with disregard for reason. I admire this response, and I wish more people were capable of doing such. I get outraged every single time someone argues not with what I said, but at how I said it. If I say someone is wrong, I give the reason why. When I am then replied to with statements I know to be false, or criticisms of my tone, it makes me angry. A fault in communication is always due to the speaker, however; I took no action to present my intent better when replying to the OP's post.

 

I would like to point out, however, that an entitlement to an opinion does not make that opinion true.

 

Instead of "establish dominance," I should have said, "assert my influence." I am a person who takes his interests very seriously.

 

Look at this from my perspective. A person posts a review of their completed RPGs; RPGs being a subject I am quite familiar with, having been playing them for about 22 years or so. This person then faults an RPG for being an RPG. Just as they are entitled to state their beliefs, so do I, to mine.

 

People can play RPGs for whatever reason they want to, and say what they want to about them. However, when done so in a public forum where discussion is the point of saying anything at all, there are bound to be disagreements. If I am stating my opinion, I will say that is what I am doing.

 

Something very relative is interpretation of speech. Without audible tone, intent is difficult to interpret as people now write more similarly to how they speak because schools have stopped teaching grammar effectively. This is the root of my comment about emoticons. I refuse to use them as I hate them. Many people find it easier to just throw out a winking smiley face to establish their tone. I find this to be akin to mumbling and walking away.

 

If you really want to know how I think, go look up the difference between Prescriptive and Descriptive Dictionaries. I side with the former.

 

I thank you for your understanding, and I am glad this situation has arrived at an amicable conclusion. Please forgive any uncouth or boorish remarks I may have made. If, perhaps, I was a little more observant or wise this could have been avoided. You have done nothing unreasonable, I see now. I simply still have much to learn.

 

Again, I'm glad this is ending amicably, as I am not really a fighter at heart. Please, don't let me trouble you any further. I will take your advice and look into the differences of Prescriptive and Descriptive Dictionaries, as my lack of knowledge on the subject had an unfortunate effect on me in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×